a standardized official address and point for every occupiable unit? metro wide? are we nuts?...

A Standardized Official Address and Point for Every Occupiable Unit?

Metro Wide?

Are we Nuts?

A Standardized Official Address and Point for Every Occupiable Unit?

Metro Wide?

Are we Nuts?

MetroGIS Address WorkgroupMark Kotz, Metropolitan Council

MetroGIS Address WorkgroupMark Kotz, Metropolitan Council

January 12, 2006Hennepin County GIS Users Group

January 12, 2006Hennepin County GIS Users Group

• Database with every occupiable unit

• Accurate “official” address and point

• Neighboring communities sharing this data

• Updated weekly or daily.

Imagine If . . .Imagine If . . .

Vision of the MetroGIS Address Workgroup

More Detail in Paper (online)

Vision of the MetroGIS Address Workgroup

More Detail in Paper (online)

• There is a need

• It will be a benefit to cities

• Will not be easy – long term vision.

What we Believe…What we Believe…

• “Occupiable Unit” is…

• Addressing authority is…

DefinitionsDefinitions

• Do we need better Address Data?

• Workgroup Investigations and Conclusions

• The Vision

• The Key = Local Government.

OverviewOverview

• Tabular addresses (no geography, not regional)

• Street centerlines with address ranges

• Parcel data.

Existing Address DataExisting Address Data

Street Centerlines with Address Ranges

Street Centerlines with Address Ranges

Parcel DataParcel Data

Parcel DataParcel Data

Parcel DataParcel Data

Parcel DataParcel Data

Parcel DataParcel Data

MetroGIS Forms Address Workgroup

March, 2004

Eberle Seen on Mars

Kotz wins Tour de France

Active Workgroup MembersActive Workgroup Members• Dave Brandt, Washington County GIS• Chad Bargo, City of Maplewood• Gordon Chinander, Metro Emergency Services Board• Amy Geisler, City of Ramsey Planning • Jeff Gottstein, Woodbury PD• Peter Henschel, Carver County GIS• Deb Jones, Falcon Heights & Ramsey Co. User Group• Joel Koepp, City of Roseville • Mark Kotz, Metropolitan Council• Christine Meyer, St. Paul Water Utility• Erin Naughton, Minneapolis GIS• Nancy Read, Metropolitan Mosquito Control District• Lynn Rohe, Scott County Planning/Zoning & PSAP• Todd Sieben, Washington County Surveyor’s Office• Scott Simmer, Hennepin County GIS• John Slusarczck, Anoka County GIS• Kent Tupper, Dakota County GIS• Ben Verbick, LOGIS

• Defined scope = “situs” address of occupiable units

• Understand how addresses are created & flow• Stakeholder surveys• County data flow diagrams

• Analyzed results & compared to unmet needs

• Developed a vision to meet the needs.

Investigations & ConclusionsInvestigations & Conclusions

• All 7 counties

• Cities Carver, Ramsey & Scott counties + Minneapolis

• Anoka county: School district, busing company, electrical utility, ambulance service, solid waste service.

Stakeholder InterviewsStakeholder Interviews

• Most addresses created at city level

• Many addressing authorities, many processes

• Address “Records” vary tremendously

• Records updated right away.

ConclusionsConclusions

• Data flow is complicated & different everywhere

• Outflow is inconsistent between sources

• Standard process wanted

• Single “official” source desired by many.

Conclusions Continued…Conclusions Continued…

• Point datasets of occupiable units & addresses

• Created by each official addressing authority

• Compiled into regional dataset

• Available for free to metro government

• Other access determined by local authorities.

The Vision Proposes…The Vision Proposes…

• Street naming & address assignment = out of scope

• Database includes parcel relate

• Standard data transfer format.

Key Aspects of VisionKey Aspects of Vision

• MetroGIS helped write data content part

• Second review comment period ends Monday

• Broader review expected in the spring

• http://www.urisa.org/address_data_standard.htm

National Address Data StandardNational Address Data Standard

• New points added when official (building permit)

• Multiple avenues to create, maintain, store data

• Potential Internet maintenance application

• Pilot study recommended (next step).

More Key Aspects…More Key Aspects…

• Organizational roles• Addressing authority• Intermediate aggregators• Regional custodian

• Facilitated approach• Regional data standard• Starter dataset from parcel points• Online editing application

Implementation ConceptsImplementation Concepts

• Cities & Counties = official addressing authority!

• They know their jurisdiction

• They update their address records quickly

• Strong connection to emergency responders.

Local Government is KeyLocal Government is Key

• Existing distribution process

• Single official source = others can clean up data

• Allows creation of regional applications• Mailing labels for occupants• Cascading address matching/geocoding

• Helps their emergency responders.

What’s in it for Them?What’s in it for Them?

• Way to track occupiable units

• Availability of data across borders

• Several already starting.

What’s in it for Them?What’s in it for Them?

• Continuous maintenance

• Impact on current workflow & procedures

• Might be a paradigm shift

• Workload & expertise varies by city.

Resources & ChallengesResources & Challenges

• Clear government need • single source of accurate “official” address• emergency response• track occupiable units

• Must be embraced by local government

• Will be difficult for many – think long term.

SummarySummary

Questions? Feedback?Questions? Feedback?

Mark Kotzmark.kotz@metc.state.mn.us

Vision Document on Web at:http://www.metrogis.org/data/

info_needs/street_addresses/add_wkgp.shtml